0
It is not that clear cut, so the answer depends on the issue. The saying comes from a handbill of the time and was meant to get a rise out of people. There was support for the colonies in England. Those that supported them wore a particular shade of blue and a ribbon. The main issue here is the principle at stake is who was to make money. If we step back and look at taxes the best way is to look at the Tea tax. The Tea Act REDUCED the cost of the tea imported to the colonies. This made the British tea suddenly competitive with the tea smuggled into the colonies from Holland by American smugglers. Hancock, Hamilton were two of the biggest smugglers in the colonies. It is clear that Hancock funded the Son's of Liberty and wanted to save the lucrative tea market for himself. This was self preservation and the smugglers thought it unfair that their fortunes should be determined by a government thousands of miles away whose chief interest was protecting the East India Company. The truth is that the Boston tea party, the handbills, and the opposition to Parliament was organized by smugglers to keep themselves from ruin. They stood the most to loose. The average American paid fewer taxes than their English counterparts.
It is not that clear cut, so the answer depends on the issue. The saying comes from a handbill of the time and was meant to get a rise out of people. There was support for the colonies in England. Those that supported them wore a particular shade of blue and a ribbon. The main issue here is the principle at stake is who was to make money. If we step back and look at taxes the best way is to look at the Tea tax. The Tea Act REDUCED the cost of the tea imported to the colonies. This made the British tea suddenly competitive with the tea smuggled into the colonies from Holland by American smugglers. Hancock, Hamilton were two of the biggest smugglers in the colonies. It is clear that Hancock funded the Son's of Liberty and wanted to save the lucrative tea market for himself. This was self preservation and the smugglers thought it unfair that their fortunes should be determined by a government thousands of miles away whose chief interest was protecting the East India Company. The truth is that the Boston tea party, the handbills, and the opposition to Parliament was organized by smugglers to keep themselves from ruin. They stood the most to loose. The average American paid fewer taxes than their English counterparts.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Why did the colonists criticize the stamp act as taxation without representation?
The fundamental argument against Parliament's taxation was that since the colonies did not receive representation in Parliament, they should not be taxed. The colonists had lobbied for representation for years, without success. As a result, the sudden levying of taxes by Parliament was totally unexpected, and angered the colonists. Although the taxes levied differed, this was the fundamental argument for all of them, including the Stamp Act.
Many colonists became angry because they did not have any representatives in the British Government to vote on laws These colonists thought this was unfair and called it?
"Taxation without representation"
What caused the American colonists' break with Great Britain?
Attempts by the British Parliament, with the support of the King, to exercise legislative powers over the colonies, particularly the power to tax, which had not been effectively exercised previously in colonial history. The colonists were used to making their own laws, and setting their own taxes, through their own elected legislatures. Since they had no representation in Parliament, Parliament's claim to be able to legislate and tax then itself, and enforce those laws with officers answerable to it rather than the colonies, meant the colonists would have no effective means of exercising and protecting their rights. Parliament could undo any of their laws and and tax them into utter poverty on a whim. When Parliament would not acknowledge the justice of the colonists grievances, and it became apparent that the king completely supported the parliament, the colonists decided to declare independence. For a more detailed accounting of just what the colonists were concerned about, read the Declaration of Independence, not just the first few lines that everybody memorizes in school, but the whole thing. Jefferson gives a long list of charges against the king and Parliament showing why the king was a tyrant unfit to rule.
What were the reasons why the colonists rebelled against England?
In the 18th century in America, the colonists had numerous reasons to think about revolting, and even to revolt in actuality, against their English overlords. The primary reason was economic: English rule was economically oppressive. Other reasons include the evident disrespect shown to the colonists by the English as well as the English refusal to allow colonists any direct representation in the rule-making that affected their lives and livelihood in their colonial homeland.
Why did the colonist consider taxation by parliament an especially serious threat to their freedom as well to their pocket books?
The colonists didn't object to all taxes - the problem was that there was no colonial representation in parliament, so many of the taxes levied by England didn't take into account many aspects of the colonial economy/lifestyle. England also began levying especially high taxes to raise revenue without considering any effect on the colonies.
Is it true or false that the colonists did not have any representation in parliament?
true
Why shouldn't the American colonists suffer from British taxation in British Parliament?
At this point int time, the colonists and Britain had a vastly different social structure, not to mention other things. Parliament simply did not share the colonists' interests. The colonists wanted to be represented by those who shared their interests, but when Parliament refused (arguing in favor of "virtual representation"), the Revolution ensued.
Why was it so important for the colonists to have tax representation?
No taxation without representation was one of the main causes of the American Revolution. The colonists believed they were not directly represented in the British Parliament and that any laws passed by the British Parliament were illegal under the Bill of Rights.
Were the colonists justified in their list of grievances?
Yes, the colonists were justified. They had been asking for Parliament representation for a decade, without results. The actions of Parliament was retaliatory, and created resentment that had not previously existed in the colonies. Diplomacy probably would have curtailed the revolution. However, Parliament attempted to subjugate rather than negotiate.
Why did the American colonists object to the taxes the British Parliament levied on sugar and other staple goods?
The American colonists objected to British taxes because they were being forced to pay money to the Crown, and at the same time had no say in the British Parliament. This is where the phrase "no taxation without representation" comes from.
Why did the colonists criticize the stamp act as taxation without representation?
The fundamental argument against Parliament's taxation was that since the colonies did not receive representation in Parliament, they should not be taxed. The colonists had lobbied for representation for years, without success. As a result, the sudden levying of taxes by Parliament was totally unexpected, and angered the colonists. Although the taxes levied differed, this was the fundamental argument for all of them, including the Stamp Act.
Why were the Tea and Stamp acts important to the American Revolution?
by raising taxes in the American colonies without granting the colonies any representation in Parliament
What is a representative colony?
A colonial representative is a person elected or selected by the voters in that colony, or selected by the colonial legislature (assembly) to represent the interests of the colonists in the colonial government. The Parliament of Great Britain is the legislative branch of the British government. In the years prior to the American Revolution, the colonists complained that they did not have any representation in the Parliament, therefor Parliament had no legal right to enact laws for the colonies, with the exception of regulating trade. The Parliament answered that the colonies had virtual representation because Parliament (the House of Lords and the House of Commons) represented the entire empire, not any specific area of the British Empire. MrV
What was the colonist reaction To the declaratory act?
The colonists were outraged.
Why did colonists protest the Stamp Act?
They believed that without representation in parliament, they should not be taxed.
What did the stamp act different from other legislation that parliament enacted?
The Stamp Act was put into place without any kind of representation from the colonies. This angered the colonists, and led to the Boston Tea Party.
Why did the English king and parliament quarrel in the 1640's?
The primary cause was that they were being ordered to submit to british rule and taxation without any way to represent themselvesnononononononononononononnononnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn POO POO
